PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Thorman’s flawed testimony at Bryan’s trials was at the heart of a two-part investigation by
ProPublica and
The New York Times Magazine
in May that questioned the accuracy of the bloodstain-pattern analysis
used to convict Bryan, as well as the training of the experts who
testify in such cases. Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic
discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of
blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to
reverse-engineer the crime itself. In July, Bryan’s case commanded the attention of the forensics
community when the Texas Forensic Science Commission — which
investigates complaints about the misuse of forensic testimony and
evidence in criminal cases — announced that the blood-spatter analysis
used to convict him was “not accurate or scientifically supported.”
Spurred by the Bryan case, the commission had already moved to end the
practice of allowing law enforcement officers with minimal training in
bloodstain-pattern interpretation to testify in Texas, stipulating that
such analysis must be performed by an accredited organization if it is
to be allowed in court. Bryan’s request for a new trial will now go before the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court."
----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judge in Joe Bryan Case Rejects Defense Pleas for New Trial," by reporter Pamela Colloff, published by ProPublica on December 6, 2018.
SUB-HEADING: Texas’ highest criminal court will now decide the fate
of Bryan, a former high school principal who has been in prison for 31
years for the murder of his wife, Mickey. A forensic expert who
testified against him has admitted his conclusions in the case were
wrong.
GIST: "Despite compelling evidence that the forensic testimony used to
convict former Texas high school principal Joe Bryan of murder was
wrong, a Texas judge today recommended that Bryan’s conviction stand,
and that he not be granted a new trial. Bryan, now 78 and in poor health, has served 31 years in prison
despite lingering questions about who shot his wife, Mickey, in 1985. Judge Doug Shaver’s decision stunned Bryan’s attorneys, who had hoped
for a different outcome after the seeming collapse of key elements of
the prosecution’s case in September, during the final day of hearings
over whether Bryan should be granted a new trial. In a dramatic moment at the hearing, a defense witness read an
affidavit from retired police Detective Robert Thorman, the
bloodstain-pattern analyst whose testimony had proved critical in
convicting Bryan. In it, Thorman
conceded
that both his findings and testimony had been rife with errors. “My
conclusions were wrong,” he wrote. “Some of the techniques and
methodology were incorrect. Therefore, some of my testimony was not
correct.” Thorman’s remarkable admission gave fresh optimism to Bryan and the
scores of former neighbors, family members and even former prison
staffers who attended the hearing that he might be granted another
chance to prove his innocence. Bryan had been attending a principals’
convention in Austin, 120 miles from his home in Clifton, where Mickey
was killed, in the days surrounding the murder. He has always maintained
that he was in Austin, asleep in his hotel room, at the time of the
crime. After the hearing, Bryan’s lawyers and the Bosque County District
Attorney submitted written conclusions. Today, Shaver adopted the
prosecution’s findings in their entirety – including an argument by
Bosque County D.A. Adam Sibley that acknowledged that parts of Thorman’s
testimony were incorrect but said it didn’t matter: “Thorman’s
testimony was not important to the case.” Shaver also adopted Sibley’s position that because Thorman did not
specify which of his conclusions were wrong, “the Court is unable to
determine whether any of this testimony mattered. Thorman’s flawed testimony at Bryan’s trials was at the heart of a two-part investigation by
ProPublica and
The New York Times Magazine
in May that questioned the accuracy of the bloodstain-pattern analysis
used to convict Bryan, as well as the training of the experts who
testify in such cases. Bloodstain-pattern analysis is a forensic
discipline whose practitioners regard the drops, spatters and trails of
blood at a crime scene as clues that can sometimes be used to
reverse-engineer the crime itself. In July, Bryan’s case commanded the attention of the forensics
community when the Texas Forensic Science Commission — which
investigates complaints about the misuse of forensic testimony and
evidence in criminal cases — announced that the blood-spatter analysis
used to convict him was “not accurate or scientifically supported.”
Spurred by the Bryan case, the commission had already moved to end the
practice of allowing law enforcement officers with minimal training in
bloodstain-pattern interpretation to testify in Texas, stipulating that
such analysis must be performed by an accredited organization if it is
to be allowed in court. Bryan’s request for a new trial will now go before the Texas Court of
Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court. The court will
consider Shaver’s findings, but it does not rubber-stamp lower courts’
recommendations, and will review the record in full. The court has no
deadline by which it must make its determination; it could take months,
or even years, to hand down a ruling. The appellate court, however, cannot consider anything outside of the
court record – including a separate conclusion by the Texas Forensic
Science Commission in October that a Texas Department of Public Safety
crime lab chemist had “overstated findings, exceeded her expertise and
engaged in speculation” when she testified for the prosecution in the
Bryan case in 1989. The commission also found that the now-retired
chemist, Patricia Retzlaff, failed to do thorough analysis of key DNA
evidence in 2012, after a judge allowed such testing to proceed. But the court can consider evidence presented at the hearing that
pointed toward another suspect in Mickey Bryan’s murder: former Clifton
police officer Dennis Dunlap. After Dunlap hanged himself in 1996,
Clifton police launched an investigation in which they determined that
he had killed a 17-year-old Clifton High School student named Judy
Whitley just four months before Mickey’s murder. During that inquiry, an
ex-wife of Dunlap’s told investigators that he had boasted of being
with the principal’s wife on the night she died. “We remain hopeful that the Court of Criminal Appeals will ultimately
rectify this injustice and declare Joe actually innocent, which he is,”
said his attorney, Jessica Freud. “At a minimum, we hope the court
vacates his conviction so that he may — for the first time — receive a
fair trial.""
The entire story can be read at:
